How Do Urban Walking Environments Impact Pedestrians’ Experience and Psychological Health? A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for your submission; the paper titled "How do urban walking environments impact pedestrians' experience and psychological health? A systematic review" presents a comprehensive and well-structured analysis of literature on the impact of urban walking environments on pedestrians' experience and psychological health. The title effectively captures the essence of the study and sets the stage for the research to follow.

Throughout the paper, the authors demonstrate a coherent approach to addressing the topic. The flow of information is logical, with a clear progression from the introduction to the methodology, results, and conclusions. This coherence allows readers to easily follow the study's objectives and findings.

The authors have appropriately selected studies for their systematic review, employing sound methodology and rigorous criteria for inclusion and exclusion. This ensures the reliability and validity of the review, as relevant studies are carefully considered. The authors' diligence in the study selection process is commendable.

Few notes here:

One aspect that requires attention is the format of the bibliography, which seems inconsistent with the numbered list. A thorough review of the bibliography will ensure that proper citation format is consistently applied throughout the paper.

While the conclusions provide a summary of the findings, they could benefit from expansion. To enhance the value of the paper, it would be beneficial to discuss the practical implications of the study's findings. This could involve exploring how urban planning or public health policies could be influenced by the findings, thereby bridging the gap between research and practice.

In terms of the writing, some minor typos, such as those found in section 3.1.1, should be addressed. Proofreading the paper will help rectify these errors and ensure a polished final version.

Lastly, I would like to emphasize that the paper is of high quality and deserves to be published. The authors have effectively executed a systematic review, covering the relevant aspects of the topic. With the suggested minor revisions, the paper will be ready to make a valuable contribution to the field.

Hope my comments are helpful for the authors. 

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 1

3.1.1. Reference number 53 is changed to 61. 

Discussion: Reference number 1 is changed to 12.

Reference list is updated. 

We have added text on practical implications.

We have corrected some typos, for example in section 3.1.1.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting exploration. Studied the process of psychological impact of urban environment on walking. The author selected many literature to summarize such issues. Overall, it has been done very well. I have a few suggestions that I hope can help you improve. Firstly, Figure 1 in the article, which proposes a research model from the urban environment to the psychological impact of walking, may require strengthened theoretical support to prove the scientific nature of your research. Secondly, in the article, you listed the differences between different countries, but I hope you can provide an explanation of the socio-economic development and human mental state of different countries, which can increase the scientific nature of the research.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 2

Thank you for your feedback.

We agree with your point regarding Figure 1 and we chose to exclude it. 

We have now added text on socio-economic differences between countries.

Reviewer 3 Report

Basic reporting

Dear authors, I’ve read with interest your work that has some potential, and the topic is very interesting.

Although the authors state that they performed a Systematic Reviews, there is a methodological issue which needs to be addressed by the authors.

For instance:

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO? Systematic reviews should be registered at inception (i.e. at the protocol stage) to help ensure the quality and integrity of research evidence, avoid unplanned duplication or bias and enable comparison of reported review methods with what was planned in the protocol.

Abstract

This information is missing:

-          A systematic search was conducted across xxx databases (which ones?)

-          Information was extracted using the populations, exposure, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOS) format?

-          Which bias evaluation tools did you use?

-          PROSPERO registration code

-          data items extracted.

Keywords usually are different from that used in the main title

Introduction

The literature is sufficiently well summarised.

-          “In the latest UN climate report”, you should explain in extenso the meaning of UN the first time you use the abbreviation.

-          “how the urban environment people walk in impacts them psychologically?” you could avoid the question mark.

-          I don't think Figure 1 is useful

Methods

-          Did you follow the PRISMA statement?

-          The protocol was registered in PROSPERO?

-          Why in google scholar only the first 50 results were selected?

-          With “literature review” do you mean all types of review, including systematic review, meta-analysis etc..?

-          -Why was no time limit considered? Please explain.

-          Why did you use the PRISMA 2009 flowchart instead of the 2020 version?

The inclusion and exclusion criteria have not been clearly defined in detail. The selection of eligible studies is the cornerstone of systematic reviews. This will determine what the authors want to focus on. The results of systematic reviews are more valuable than other types of reviews because they provide researchers with the best available evidence for a given question. It is strongly recommended that researchers use population, intervention, comparison, outcome and study design (PICOs) framework.

-          If you have not conducted a meta-analysis, why do you mention studies included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis)?

-          a 'data items' sub-section would be more useful, indicating what information was extracted (i.e. number of subjects, age, etc.).

-          You should include tables with the results of the instruments used to assess the risk of bias within studies.

Validity of the findings

From my personal point of view, with some modifications, I would see this work more as a possible narrative review, rather than a systematic review suitable for a journal such as Sustainability.

Please, check the bibliography section.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 3

Basic reporting

We have now addressed the weakness of not registering the study in PROSPERO. 

Abstract

We have now added the databases. 

We have added that a metastudy was not conducted. Additional information corresponding PICO is in the Method section.

Thank you for your advice on bias evaluation tools. We allowed a considerable heterogeneity in publications in order to explore the research area and therefore included all publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Please see section 2.3. In the Abstract we added a sentence on heterogeneity of publications. 

Data items extracted are now added in Abstract. 

Key words have now been modified.

Introduction

Thank you for addressing the writing on the United Nations. We have now given the full wording the first time it is used. 

The question mark is changed.

We have deleted Figure 1.

Method

We have substantially followed the PRISMA statements. 

We have explained why the 50 first results were selected in Google Scholar. 

We have detailed the expression “literature review”.

We chose not to use a time limit because we did not want to exclude potential older important studies. However, the field is growing rapidly and 67% of our included papers were published in 2018 or later.  

Thank you for addressing the PRISMA update from the 2009 to 2020 version. This is now changed. 

We hope that our Table 3 corresponds to the PICO format: Population (Region, Respondents, N), Intervention/Exposure (implicitly in Findings), Outcome (explicitly in Findings). In the table, there is also information on method (data collection, sampling, and data analysis).

The question of metaanalysis is now solved with the new flowchart. 

Please see Table 3 for number of subjects, respondents, age etc. 

Please see our answer under “Abstract” regarding bias evaluation tools. 

Validity of findings

We have revised the bibliography section and made minor editing to the English language. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I appreciated the changes you have made; however, there are still some methodological issues to be clarified:

You state that you have addressed the weaknesses related to not registering the protocol via PROSPERO, but it is not clear to me how.  At the same time, you state that you have essentially followed PRISMA statements but, as stated by the PRISMA 2020 checklist in #24b, if the protocol has not been registered it should be explicitly stated.

Moreover, the PRISMA 2020 checklist in item #11 requires you to specify the methods used to assess bias, including details on the tools used.

That’s because, contrary to other types of reviews, where this is not required, in systematic reviews, which represent the highest degree of scientific evidence (after meta-analyses), rigorous methodology is desirable. Bias risk assessment helps to establish the transparency of the results and conclusions of the evidence synthesis. Bias risk assessment is often performed for each included study. Individual studies included in a synthesis may include bias in the results or conclusions, such as design flaws that raise doubts about the validity of the results or an overestimation of the effect of the intervention. The process is usually performed for each study included in a systematic review and involves determining systematic flaws or limitations in conduct, design, or analysis of a review that may distort the reported findings of the review.

I think that, at the very least, you should clearly state that you did not use any risk assessment tool for bias.

table 3 does not represent what might be a necessary table for the PICO(s) framework, or at least it should be organized differently. I think it is easier, even in terms of timing, to create a table like the one (table 1) you can see in this SR ( https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11010074 ).

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your comments. 

We have now added details on how registering a review at PROSPERO adds transparency to the process and since before it is clearly stated in our review that it was not registered in PROSPERO. We hope that this covers  #24 b (PRISMA 2020 checklist). 

We have now clearly stated that we have not used a risk assessment tool for bias (#11). 

We agree that it is a good idea to add a table presenting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The table is now included.  

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thanks for addressing all the issues. I have no further comments.